Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 This is a sincere request to all those on this list who use ITRANS to represent saMskR^ita words. It is fine if you don't use ITRANS, but if you choose to use it then please ensure that the spellings are correct. The occasional mistake is fine but one should not be regularly using wrong spellings. The heart of every lover of the devabhAShA cringes to see wrong spellings such as " vedA " , " vedantA " , " mokshA " , " dharmA " , " pramAnA " , etc, all of which appear on this list with unfailing regularity. (FYI, the correct ITRANS spellings of the above words are " veda " , " vedAnta " , " mokSha or moxa " , " dharma " and " pramANa " ). I hope the concerned list members will take this sincere suggestion in the right spirit. Ramesh 2009/6/14 Shyam <shyam_md: > > Now the second point- > You talk about a sceptical approach. I think this approach is alien to > vedAntA. The consciousness itself as you point out is uninvolved - it has > neither any desire to goad nor replulse the seeker. > The inquiring intellect is the one that is under the spell of avidyA. Its > only means to know itself is the Shruti, the Veda-pramAnA. So even from a > so-called philosophical standpoint, keeping aside the devotional > aspect(something by they way that is completely alien to sanAtana dharmA) -- santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II - Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Thank you Sri Ramesh, for posting this message on behalf of all those cringing hearts. Suren advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: > > This is a sincere request to all those on this list who use ITRANS to > represent saMskR^ita words. > > It is fine if you don't use ITRANS, but if you choose to use it then > please ensure that the spellings are correct. The occasional mistake > is fine but one should not be regularly using wrong spellings. > > The heart of every lover of the devabhAShA cringes to see wrong > spellings such as " vedA " , " vedantA " , " mokshA " , " dharmA " , " pramAnA " , > etc, all of which appear on this list with unfailing regularity. > > (FYI, the correct ITRANS spellings of the above words are " veda " , > " vedAnta " , " mokSha or moxa " , " dharma " and " pramANa " ). > > I hope the concerned list members will take this sincere suggestion in > the right spirit. > > Ramesh > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: > > This is a sincere request to all those on this list who use ITRANS to > represent saMskR^ita words. > > It is fine if you don't use ITRANS, but if you choose to use it then > please ensure that the spellings are correct. The occasional mistake > is fine but one should not be regularly using wrong spellings. Namaste Shri Ramesh-ji, Here is perhaps a simple question, which I seem to face many times in my (private) notes: How does ITRANS work with pluralization? What is the suggested way of writing the following: " Hence, we proved that brahman is not cognizable through the above five pramANAs " or " Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above five pramANas " praNAms to all Advaitins Ramakrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna wrote: > > advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@> wrote: > > > Here is perhaps a simple question, which I seem to face many times > in my (private) notes: How does ITRANS work with pluralization? What > is the suggested way of writing the following: > > " Hence, we proved that brahman is not cognizable through the above > five pramANAs " > > or > > " Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above > five pramANas " > Namaste, As standardization of this 'hybrid fusion' is unlikely to be coming soon may I suggest as follows: " Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above five pramANas " to be written as : for strict compliance-[this becomes complex because the inflection for the plural changes with the gender in Sanskrit]: " Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above five 'pramANAH' " or for temporary compromise-[the Sanskrit word tobe in single quotation mark,+hyphen,+s]: Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above five 'pramANa'-s " Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 The system I have used throughout my website and in all my books is as per Sunder-ji's second suggestion. Since this does not require that one knows anything about the correct case endings of nouns (i.e. you simply use the word as given in the dictionary and add '-s' to the end), I suggest that this is the best policy for most of us! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Sunder Hattangadi Monday, June 15, 2009 11:17 PM advaitin Re: Usage of ITRANS << >> for strict compliance-[this becomes complex because the inflection for the plural changes with the gender in Sanskrit]: " Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above five 'pramANAH' " or for temporary compromise-[the Sanskrit word tobe in single quotation mark,+hyphen,+s]: Hence, we show that brahman is not cognizable through the above five 'pramANa'-s " Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.